I am having a strange bug in TensorFlow. Consider the following code, part of a simple feed-forward neural network:
output = (tf.matmul(layer_3,w_out) + b_out)
prob = tf.nn.sigmoid(output);
loss = tf.reduce_mean(tf.nn.sigmoid_cross_entropy_with_logits(logits = output, targets = y_, name=None))
optimizer = tf.train.GradientDescentOptimizer(learning_rate = learning_rate).minimize(loss, var_list = model_variables)`
(Notice that prob is not used to define the loss function. This is because sigmoid_cross_entropy applies sigmoid internally in its definition)
I later run the optimizer in the following line:
result,step_loss,_ = sess.run(fetches = [output,loss,optimizer],feed_dict = {x_ : np.array([[x,y,x*x,y*y,x*y]]), y_ : [[1,0]]});
The above works just fine. However, if I instead run the following line to run the code, the network seems to perform terribly, even though there shouldn't be any difference!
result,step_loss,_ = sess.run(fetches = [prob,loss,optimizer],feed_dict = {x_ : np.array([[x,y,x*x,y*y,x*y]]), y_ : [[1,0]]});
I have a feeling it has something to do with the order in which TF computes the nodes in the graph during a session, but I'm not sure. What could the issue be?
It's not an issue with the graph, it's just that you are looking at different things.
In the first example you provide:
result,step_loss,_ = sess.run(fetches = [output,loss,optimizer],feed_dict = {x_ : np.array([[x,y,x*x,y*y,x*y]]), y_ : [[1,0]]})
you are saving the result of running the output op in the result python variable.
In the second one:
result,step_loss,_ = sess.run(fetches = [prob,loss,optimizer],feed_dict = {x_ : np.array([[x,y,x*x,y*y,x*y]]), y_ : [[1,0]]})
you are saving the result of the prob op in the result python variable.
Since both ops are different it is to be expected that the values returned by them would be different.
You could run
logits, activation, step_loss, _ = sess.run(fetches = [output, prob, loss, optimizer], ...)
to check your results.
Related
Work environment
TensorFlow release version : 1.3.0-rc2
TensorFlow git version : v1.3.0-rc1-994-gb93fd37
Operating System : CentOS Linux release 7.2.1511 (Core)
Problem Description
I use tf.cond() to move between training and validation datasets at the time of processing. The following snippet shows how I have done :
with tf.variable_scope(tf.get_variable_scope()) as vscope:
for i in range(4):
with tf.device('/gpu:%d'%i):
with tf.name_scope('GPU-Tower-%d'%i) as scope:
worktype = tf.get_variable("wt",[], initializer=tf.zeros_initializer())
worktype = tf.assign(worktype, 1)
workcondition = tf.equal(worktype, 1)
elem = tf.cond(workcondition, lambda: train_iterator.get_next(), lambda: val_iterato\
r.get_next())
net = vgg16cnn2(elem[0],numclasses=256)
img = elem[0]
centropy = tf.reduce_mean(tf.nn.sparse_softmax_cross_entropy_with_logits(labels=ele\
m[1],logits= net))
reg_losses = tf.get_collection(tf.GraphKeys.REGULARIZATION_LOSSES, scope)
regloss = 0.05 * tf.reduce_sum(reg_losses)
total_loss = centropy + regloss
t1 = tf.summary.scalar("Training Batch Loss", total_loss)
tf.get_variable_scope().reuse_variables()
predictions = tf.cast(tf.argmax(tf.nn.softmax(net), 1), tf.int32)
correct_predictions = tf.cast(tf.equal(predictions, elem[1]), tf.float32)
batch_accuracy = tf.reduce_mean(correct_predictions)
t2 = tf.summary.scalar("Training Batch Accuracy", batch_accuracy)
correct_detection.append(correct_predictions)
grads = optim.compute_gradients(total_loss)
So basically based on the value of worktype, a minibatch will be taken from training or validation set.
When I run this code, I get the following LookUp Error :
LookupError: No gradient defined for operation 'GPU-Tower-0/cond/IteratorGetNext_1' (op type: IteratorGetNext)
Why does TensorFlow think that IteratorGetNext_1 requires a gradient ? How can I remedy this ?
The variable worktype is marked as trainable. By default, Optimizer.compute_gradients(...) computes the gradients for all trainable variables.
There are two ways you could solve this:
Set trainable=False in tf.get_variable(...).
Explicitly specify the variables for which the gradients should be computed with the var_list argument of Optimizer.compute_gradients(...).
For the reinforcement learning one usually applies forward pass of the neural network for each step of the episode in order to calculate policy. Afterwards one could calculate parameter gradients using backpropagation. Simplified implementation of my network looks like this:
class AC_Network(object):
def __init__(self, s_size, a_size, scope, trainer, parameters_net):
with tf.variable_scope(scope):
self.is_training = tf.placeholder(shape=[], dtype=tf.bool)
self.inputs = tf.placeholder(shape=[None, s_size], dtype=tf.float32)
# (...)
layer = slim.fully_connected(self.inputs,
layer_size,
activation_fn=tf.nn.relu,
biases_initializer=None)
layer = tf.contrib.layers.dropout(inputs=layer, keep_prob=parameters_net["dropout_keep_prob"],
is_training=self.is_training)
self.policy = slim.fully_connected(layer, a_size,
activation_fn=tf.nn.softmax,
biases_initializer=None)
self.actions = tf.placeholder(shape=[None], dtype=tf.int32)
self.advantages = tf.placeholder(shape=[None], dtype=tf.float32)
actions_onehot = tf.one_hot(self.actions, a_size, dtype=tf.float32)
responsible_outputs = tf.reduce_sum(self.policy * actions_onehot, [1])
self.policy_loss = - policy_loss_multiplier * tf.reduce_mean(tf.log(responsible_outputs) * self.advantages)
local_vars = tf.get_collection(tf.GraphKeys.TRAINABLE_VARIABLES, scope)
self.gradients = tf.gradients(self.policy_loss, local_vars)
Now during training I will fist rollout the episode by consecutive forward passes (again, simplified version):
s = self.local_env.reset() # list of input variables for the first step
while done == False:
a_dist = sess.run([self.policy],
feed_dict = {self.local_AC.inputs: [s],
self.is_training: True})
a = np.argmax(a_dist)
s, r, done, extra_stat = self.local_env.step(a)
# (...)
and in the end I will calculate gradients by backward pass:
p_l, grad = sess.run([self.policy_loss,
self.gradients],
feed_dict={self.inputs: np.vstack(comb_observations),
self.is_training: True,
self.actions: np.hstack(comb_actions),})
(please note that I could have made a mistake somewhere above trying to remove as much as possible of the original code irrelevant to the issue in question)
So finally the question: Is there a way of ensuring that all the consecutive calls to the sess.run() will generate the same dropout structure? Ideally I would like to have exactly the same dropout structure within each episode and only change it between episodes. Things seem to work well as they are but I continue to wonder.
I found a peculiar property of lstm cell(not limited to lstm but I only examined with this) of tensorflow which has not been reported as far as I know.
I don't know whether it actually has, so I left this post in SO. Below is a toy code for this problem:
import tensorflow as tf
import numpy as np
import time
def network(input_list):
input,init_hidden_c,init_hidden_m = input_list
cell = tf.nn.rnn_cell.BasicLSTMCell(256, state_is_tuple=True)
init_hidden = tf.nn.rnn_cell.LSTMStateTuple(init_hidden_c, init_hidden_m)
states, hidden_cm = tf.nn.dynamic_rnn(cell, input, dtype=tf.float32, initial_state=init_hidden)
net = [v for v in tf.trainable_variables()]
return states, hidden_cm, net
def action(x, h_c, h_m):
t0 = time.time()
outputs, output_h = sess.run([rnn_states[:,-1:,:], rnn_hidden_cm], feed_dict={
rnn_input:x,
rnn_init_hidden_c: h_c,
rnn_init_hidden_m: h_m
})
dt = time.time() - t0
return outputs, output_h, dt
rnn_input = tf.placeholder("float", [None, None, 512])
rnn_init_hidden_c = tf.placeholder("float", [None,256])
rnn_init_hidden_m = tf.placeholder("float", [None,256])
rnn_input_list = [rnn_input, rnn_init_hidden_c, rnn_init_hidden_m]
rnn_states, rnn_hidden_cm, rnn_net = network(rnn_input_list)
feed_input = np.random.uniform(low=-1.,high=1.,size=(1,1,512))
feed_init_hidden_c = np.zeros(shape=(1,256))
feed_init_hidden_m = np.zeros(shape=(1,256))
sess = tf.Session()
sess.run(tf.global_variables_initializer())
for i in range(10000):
_, output_hidden_cm, deltat = action(feed_input, feed_init_hidden_c, feed_init_hidden_m)
if i % 10 == 0:
print 'Running time: ' + str(deltat)
(feed_init_hidden_c, feed_init_hidden_m) = output_hidden_cm
feed_input = np.random.uniform(low=-1.,high=1.,size=(1,1,512))
[Not important]What this code does is to generate an output from 'network()' function containing LSTM where the input's temporal dimension is 1, so output's is also 1, and pull in&out initial state for each step of running.
[Important] Looking the 'sess.run()' part. For some reasons in my real code, I happened to put [:,-1:,:] for 'rnn_states'. What is happening is then the time spent for each 'sess.run()' increases. For some inspection by my own, I found this slow down stems from that [:,-1:,:]. I just wanted to get the output at the last time step. If you do 'outputs, output_h = sess.run([rnn_states, rnn_hidden_cm], feed_dict{~' w/o [:,-1:,:] and take 'last_output = outputs[:,-1:,:]' after the 'sess.run()', then the slow down does not occur.
I do not know why this exponential increment of time happens with that [:,-1:,:] running. Is this the nature of tensorflow hasn't been documented but particularly slows down(may be adding more graph by its own?)?
Thank you, and hope this mistake not happen for other users by this post.
I encountered the same problem, with TensorFlow slowing down for each iteration I ran it, and found this question while trying to debug it. Here's a short description of my situation and how I solved it for future reference. Hopefully it can point someone in the right direction and save them some time.
In my case the problem was mainly that I didn't make use of feed_dict to supply the network state when executing sess.run(). Instead I redeclared outputs, final_state and prediction every iteration. The answer at https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/issues/1439#issuecomment-194405649 made me realize how stupid that was... I was constantly creating new graph nodes in every iteration, making it all slower and slower. The problematic code looked something like this:
# defining the network
lstm_layer = rnn.BasicLSTMCell(num_units, forget_bias=1)
outputs, final_state = rnn.static_rnn(lstm_layer, input, initial_state=rnn_state, dtype='float32')
prediction = tf.nn.softmax(tf.matmul(outputs[-1], out_weights)+out_bias)
for input_data in data_seq:
# redeclaring, stupid stupid...
outputs, final_state = rnn.static_rnn(lstm_layer, input, initial_state=rnn_state, dtype='float32')
prediction = tf.nn.softmax(tf.matmul(outputs[-1], out_weights)+out_bias)
p, rnn_state = sess.run((prediction, final_state), feed_dict={x: input_data})
The solution was of course to only declare the nodes once in the beginning, and supply the new data with feed_dict. The code went from being half slow (> 15 ms in the beginning) and becoming slower for every iteration, to execute every iteration in around 1 ms. My new code looks something like this:
out_weights = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([num_units, n_classes]), name="out_weights")
out_bias = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([n_classes]), name="out_bias")
# placeholder for the network state
state_placeholder = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, [2, 1, num_units])
rnn_state = tf.nn.rnn_cell.LSTMStateTuple(state_placeholder[0], state_placeholder[1])
x = tf.placeholder('float', [None, 1, n_input])
input = tf.unstack(x, 1, 1)
# defining the network
lstm_layer = rnn.BasicLSTMCell(num_units, forget_bias=1)
outputs, final_state = rnn.static_rnn(lstm_layer, input, initial_state=rnn_state, dtype='float32')
prediction = tf.nn.softmax(tf.matmul(outputs[-1], out_weights)+out_bias)
# actual network state, which we input with feed_dict
_rnn_state = tf.nn.rnn_cell.LSTMStateTuple(np.zeros((1, num_units), dtype='float32'), np.zeros((1, num_units), dtype='float32'))
it = 0
for input_data in data_seq:
encl_input = [[input_data]]
p, _rnn_state = sess.run((prediction, final_state), feed_dict={x: encl_input, rnn_state: _rnn_state})
print("{} - {}".format(it, p))
it += 1
Moving the declaration out from the for loop also got rid of the problem which the OP sdr2002 had, doing a slice outputs[-1] in sess.run() inside the for loop.
As mentioned above, no sliced output for 'sess.run()' is much appreciated for this case.
def action(x, h_c, h_m):
t0 = time.time()
outputs, output_h = sess.run([rnn_states, rnn_hidden_cm], feed_dict={
rnn_input:x,
rnn_init_hidden_c: h_c,
rnn_init_hidden_m: h_m
})
outputs = outputs[:,-1:,:]
dt = time.time() - t0
return outputs, output_h, dt
I'm getting a strange error when trying to compute the intersection over union using tensorflows tf.contrib.metrics.streaming_mean_iou.
This was the code I was using before which works perfectly fine
tensorflow as tf
label = tf.image.decode_png(tf.read_file('/path/to/label.png'),channels=1)
label_lin = tf.reshape(label, [-1,])
weights = tf.cast(tf.less_equal(label_lin, 10), tf.int32)
mIoU, update_op = tf.contrib.metrics.streaming_mean_iou(label_lin, label_lin,num_classes = 11,weights = weights)
init = tf.local_variables_initializer()
sess.run(init)
sess.run([update_op])
However when I use a mask like this
mask = tf.image.decode_png(tf.read_file('/path/to/mask_file.png'),channels=1)
mask_lin = tf.reshape(mask, [-1,])
mask_lin = tf.cast(mask_lin,tf.int32)
mIoU, update_op = tf.contrib.metrics.streaming_mean_iou(label_lin, label_lin,num_classes = 11,weights = mask_lin)
init = tf.local_variables_initializer()
sess.run(init)
sess.run([update_op])
It keeps on failing after an irregular number of iterations showing this error:
*** Error in `/usr/bin/python': corrupted double-linked list: 0x00007f29d0022fd0 ***
I checked the shape and data type of both mask_lin and weights. They are the same, so I cannot really see what is going wrong here.
Also the fact that the error comes after calling update_op an irregular number of times is strange. Maybe TF empties the mask_lin object after calling several sess.run()'s ?
Or is this some TF bug? But then again why would it work with weights...
I would like to have an LSTM in tensorflow whose weights are the exponential moving average of the weights of another LSTM. So basically I have this code with some input placeholder and some initial state placeholder:
def test_lstm(input_ph, init_ph, scope):
cell = tf.nn.rnn_cell.LSTMCell(128, use_peepholes=True)
input_ph = tf.transpose(input_ph, [1, 0, 2])
input_list = tf.unpack(input_ph)
with tf.variable_scope(scope) as vs:
outputs, states = tf.nn.rnn(cell, input_list, initial_state=init_ph)
theta = [v for v in tf.all_variables() if v.name.startswith(vs.name)]
return outputs, theta
lstm_1, theta_1 = test_lstm(input_1, state_init_1, scope="lstm_1")
What I would like to do now is something similar along these lines (which don't actually work because the exponential moving average puts the tag "ema" behind the variable name of the weights and they do not appear in variable scope because they were not created with tf.get_variable):
ema = tf.train.ExponentialMovingAverage(decay=1-self.tau, name="ema")
with tf.variable_scope("lstm_2"):
maintain_averages_theta_1 = ema.apply(theta_1)
theta_2_1 = [ema.average(x) for x in theta_1]
lstm_2 , theta_2_2 = test_lstm(input_2, state_init_2, scope="lstm_2"
where eventually theta_2_1 would be equal to theta_2_2 (or throw an exception because the variables already exist).
Change (3/May/2018): I added one line apart from the old answer. The old one itself is self-sufficient to this question, but it real practice we initialize 'target network' as the same value to the 'behavioural network'. I added this point. Search the line having 'Change0': You need to do this only once right after when the target network's parameters are just initialized. Without 'Change0', you first round of gradient-based update would become nasty since Q_target and Q_behaviour are not correlated while you need both to be somewhat related ex) TD = r + gamma*Q_target - Q_behaviour for the update.
Seems a bit late but hope this helps.
The critical problem of TF-RNN series possess is that we cannot directly designate the variables for RNNs unlike plain feedforward or convolutional NNs, so that we can't do simple work - get EMAed vars and plug into the network.
Let's go into the real deal(I attached a practice code to look-up for this, so please refer EMA_LSTM.py).
Shall we say, there is a network function containing LSTM:
def network(in_x,in_h):
# Input: 'in_x' is the input sequence, 'in_h' is the initial hidden cell(c,m)
# Output: 'hidden_outputs' is the output sequence(c-sequence), 'net' is the list of parameters used in this network function
cell = tf.nn.rnn_cell.BasicLSTMCell(3, state_is_tuple=True)
in_h = tf.nn.rnn_cell.LSTMStateTuple(in_h[0], in_h[1])
hidden_outputs, last_tuple = tf.nn.dynamic_rnn(cell, in_x, dtype=tf.float32, initial_state=in_h)
net = [v for v in tf.trainable_variables() if tf.contrib.framework.get_name_scope() in v.name]
return hidden_outputs, net
Then you declare tf.placeholder for the necessary inputs, which are:
in_x = tf.placeholder("float", [None,None,6])
in_c = tf.placeholder("float", [None,3])
in_m = tf.placeholder("float", [None,3])
in_h = (in_c, in_m)
Lastly, we run a session that proceeds the network() function with specified inputs:
init_cORm = np.zeros(shape=(1,3))
input = np.ones(shape=(1,1,6))
print '========================new-1(beh)=============================='
with tf.Session() as sess:
with tf.variable_scope('beh', reuse=False) as beh:
result, net1 = network(in_x,in_h)
sess.run(tf.global_variables_initializer())
list = sess.run([result, in_x, in_h, net1], feed_dict={
in_x : input,
in_c : init_cORm,
in_m : init_cORm
})
print 'result:', list[0]
print 'in_x:' , list[1]
print 'in_h:', list[2]
print 'net1:', list[3][0][0][:4]
Now, we are going to make the var_list called 'net4' that contains the ExponentialMovingAverage(EMA)-ed values of 'net1', as in below with original 'net1' being first assigned in beh session above and newly assigned in below by adding 1. for each element:
ema = tf.train.ExponentialMovingAverage(decay=0.5)
target_update_op = ema.apply(net1)
init_new_vars_op = tf.initialize_variables(var_list=[v for v in tf.global_variables() if 'ExponentialMovingAverage' in v.name]) # 'initialize_variables' will be replaced with 'variables_initializer' in 2017
sess.run(init_new_vars_op)
sess.run([param4.assign(param1.eval()) for param4, param1 in zip(net4,net1)]) # Change0
len_net1 = len(net1)
net1_ema = [[] for i in range(len_net1)]
for i in range(len_net1):
sess.run(net1[i].assign(1. + net1[i]))
sess.run(target_update_op)
Note that
we only initialised(by declaring 'init_new_vars_op' then running the declaration job) the variables of their name containing 'ExponentialMovingAverage', if not the variables in net1 will also be newly initialised.
'net1' is newly assigned with +1 for every elements of the variables in 'net1'. If an element of 'net1' was -0.5 and is now 0.5 by +1, then we want to have 'net4' as 0. when the EMA decay rate is 0.5
Finally, we run the EMA job with 'sess.run(target_update_op)'
Eventually, we declare 'net4' first with the 'network()' function and then assign&run the EMA(net1) values into 'net4'. When you run 'sess.run(result)', then it will be the one with EMA(net1)-ed variables.
with tf.variable_scope('tare', reuse=False) as tare:
result, net4 = network(in_x,in_h)
len_net4 = len(net4)
target_assign = [[] for i in range(len_net4)]
for i in range(len_net4):
target_assign[i] = net4[i].assign(ema.average(net1[i]))
sess.run(target_assign[i].op)
list = sess.run([result, in_x, in_h, net4], feed_dict={
in_x : input,
in_c : init_cORm,
in_m : init_cORm
})
What's happened in here? You just indirectly declares the LSTM variables as 'net4' in the 'network()' function. Then in the for loop, we points out that 'net4' is actually EMA of 'net1' and 'net1+1.' . Lastly, with the net4 specified what to do with(via 'network()') and what values it takes(via 'for loop of .assign(ema.average()) to itself'), you run the process.
It is somewhat counter-intuitive that we declare the 'result' first and specifies the value of parameters second. However, that's the nature of TF what they exactly look for, as it is always logical to set variables, processes, and their relation first then to assign values, then runs the processes.
Lastly, few things to go further for the real machine learning codes:
In here, I just second assigned 'net1' with 'net1 + 1.'. In real case, this '+1.' step is where you 'sess.run()'(after you 'declare' in somewhere) your optimiser. So every-time after you 'sess.run(optimiser)', 'sess.run(target_update_op)' and then'sess.run(target_assign[i].op)' should follow to update your 'net4' along the EMA of 'net1'. Conceretly, you can do this job with different order like below:
ema = tf.train.ExponentialMovingAverage(decay=0.5)
target_update_op = ema.apply(net1)
with tf.variable_scope('tare', reuse=False) as tare:
result, net4 = network(in_x,in_h)
len_net4 = len(net4)
target_assign = [[] for i in range(len_net4)]
for i in range(len_net4):
target_assign[i] = net4[i].assign(ema.average(net1[i]))
init_new_vars_op = tf.initialize_variables(var_list=[v for v in tf.global_variables() if 'ExponentialMovingAverage' in v.name]) # 'initialize_variables' will be replaced with 'variables_initializer' in 2017
sess.run(init_new_vars_op)
sess.run([param4.assign(param1.eval()) for param4, param1 in zip(net4,net1)]) # Change0
Lastly, be aware that you must sess.run(ema.apply(net)) right after the net changes, and then sess.run(net_ema.assign(ema.average(net)). W/O .apply, net_ema will not get assigned with averaged value
len_net1 = len(net1)
net1_ema = [[] for i in range(len_net1)]
for i in range(len_net1):
sess.run(net1[i].assign(1. + net1[i]))
sess.run(target_update_op)
for i in range(len_net4):
sess.run(target_assign[i].op)
list = sess.run([result, in_x, in_h, net4], feed_dict={
in_x : input,
in_c : init_cORm,
in_m : init_cORm
})